Conquer Club

Sorry Benn - I didn't save my file, and i cropped the image so i don't know what the entire map size was. I just know i was able to reduce it and still keep it good looking.

No problems
The smaller ones I've got here look fine, although I'll keep working on the bigger image

I agree with RJ, the image is too big, especially when it doesn't need to be.
Even though it is the large map, I think shrinking it a bit would be better. you don't need that much space for such a simple map.

Other than that, I don't see any other possible problems right now. It's looking good.

Yeah, what's the hold up? MrBenn pretty much had this done by the time he shared it with us. We should be playing this one by now....

Here you go, good luck with the map.


Now one of the CAs needs to move this thread to the main foundry.


I'm still a fan of shrinking the large version a bit, but its not a big deal. Good luck.

Thanks for the stamp wca

gimil wrote:

MrBenn wrote:If you show me how to fit that inside a territory (along with the English translation) the size of the village, I'll put it on

Not my job

"Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"

THe people of the town call it just Llanfair. Check wikipedia.

UPDATE!


Version 6
Large and Small Images

I've done a little tweaking, and put together a slightly smaller large image, and a smaller small image...
The sea now has a slight edge to it - there was a suggestion to have a blue tinge, but it didn't look right. I've opted for a slightly murky sea, which seems to fit the style of the map!
I've added the Shire suffix to some of the English territory names where they'll fit, which will hopefully make it slightly more obvious what the poem means when it talks about shires
There are now working small/large images - Gameplay discussion is desperately needed

Someone forgot their bigimg tags

Any chance of flipping the colors of the Midlands and the North? Or just changing the Midlands? The color of that is too similar to the South-West for my color-blind eyes to tell apart. The fact that the whole continent has an inner glow with the color makes me able to distinguish them, but I think it would be better if you shuffled the colors.

What about the bonuses? Some should be WAAAY higher, no? Because they have two territs within themselves, and each territory that they touch has two...

Maybe thats just me?

Yeah I think Bonuses need to be discussed...

However - continents with higher territories are at an advantage - as you get +1 per double (english/welsh) territory?

So for instance... top left - has +5 + +3 = +8 for a 10 territory continent with 6 borders.

Whereas english has +3 + +6 = +9 for a 6 territory continent with 6 borders.

C.

I did put the numbers into one of the bonus spreadsheet calculators, and then reduced the region bonus by the 'shire' bonuses that you would also get. I think I then changed a 5 to a 6 for the sole reason of making fog games a bit more confusing

I haven't got any burning anger/desire to be inflexible... any serious suggestions about bonus values will be considered

MrBenn wrote:I did put the numbers into one of the bonus spreadsheet calculators, and then reduced the region bonus by the 'shire' bonuses that you would also get. I think I then changed a 5 to a 6 for the sole reason of making fog games a bit more confusing

I haven't got any burning anger/desire to be inflexible... any serious suggestions about bonus values will be considered

Consider dropping both 6's to 5's then?

C.

yeti_c wrote:Consider dropping both 6's to 5's then?

Sounds reasonable...

[shameless bump]

MrBenn wrote:[shameless bump]

That's outrageous behaviour!!!

C.

I still think the big image is way too big.
I think the blue and purple regions are too similar in color.

There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Hey benn, I am ignoring this map (and all the others around here) no longer.

Call me colorblind, but southwest and midlands look the same to me. South and English are also similar, but not as bad. Maybe swap the English and midlands colors?

First post says there are 32 territories and 18 pairs... seems like the math is off there.

The double territory bit is interesting, though it obviously presents the problem of having twice as many borders to hold to control a region. Any calculation of bonuses should take this into account, but also needs to take into account the addition pair bonuses. As such, the +3 for the South seems a bit high, as that's a total of +5 for securing four well-connected territories.

Giving a +1 for every pair makes for a nice compromise and should take the emphasis off of securing bonus regions and instead put it on gobbling up Shires, but it will lead to some really terrible starts. In two and three player games, the player who goes first is going to be certain to have at least two or three pairs, and by starting with a drop of five or six (or more) armies on a 32 territory you should be able to quickly put your opponent in a world of hurt from round one.

Anglessy and Caernarfon are separated by a narrow strip of water, yet I assume they can attack each other. Cardiganshire and Merioneth are separated by a similar strip of water, yet I would guess that they can't?

1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

yeti_c wrote:1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

Sure, but do you start position tag the entire map, in sets of two? Seems like that's the only way you can guarantee that nobody starts the game out with a pair.

Let's say Benn codes every pair of territories within a county as start positions, so no player can ever start with both... 16 start tags. And I'm wondering if setting up every pair as start positions might have unintended consequences - maybe yeti can set me straight on how this works, but here are my questions:

• In a two player game, are all 16 start territories are distributed among the two players, leaving no neutral territories? Or are all start territories split up between the two players and a third, neutral "player?"

• I know that in cases where there are more territories in a start tag than there are players the extra territories go neutral, but what happens when there are fewer territories in a start tag than players? Two territories split up evenly among three to eight players? I would assume that everybody ends up with the same # of territories, but the start tags just keep anybody from owning a pair, but I thought it was worth asking.

oaktown wrote:

yeti_c wrote:1v1 games could be rectified with some starting positions?

C.

Sure, but do you start position tag the entire map, in sets of two? Seems like that's the only way you can guarantee that nobody starts the game out with a pair.

Let's say Benn codes every pair of territories within a county as start positions, so no player can ever start with both... 16 start tags. And I'm wondering if setting up every pair as start positions might have unintended consequences - maybe yeti can set me straight on how this works, but here are my questions:

The way I would do it with starts would be to create just 2 starting positions. (Thus only affecting 1v1 games).

Those starts have a list of territories in that stop the pair bonuses.

This would have to be balanced properly though - and would also mean *ALL* 1v1 games would start the same.

e.g.

Code: Select all

<positions>
       <position>
          <territory>Welsh 1</territory>
          <territory>English 2</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 3</territory>
          <territory>English 4</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 5</territory>
          <territory>English 6</territory>
          ...
       </position>
       <position>
          <territory>English 1</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 2</territory>
          <territory>English 3</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 4</territory>
          <territory>English 5</territory>
          <territory>Welsh 6</territory>
          ...
       </position>
</positions>


This could remove all the starting pairs for 1v1 games. - other game types self level - if 1 player starts with more bonuses - then the other players will attack them!

oaktown wrote:• In a two player game, are all 16 start territories are distributed among the two players, leaving no neutral territories? Or are all start territories split up between the two players and a third, neutral "player?"

Starting tags have no *Neutral* player (for 1v1 games).

oaktown wrote:• I know that in cases where there are more territories in a start tag than there are players the extra territories go neutral, but what happens when there are fewer territories in a start tag than players? Two territories split up evenly among three to eight players? I would assume that everybody ends up with the same # of territories, but the start tags just keep anybody from owning a pair, but I thought it was worth asking.

This doesn't make sense. Do you mean - Fewer "positions" than players?

If that is the case - then NO positions are used... in the example above - as you only have 2 positions - these are only *dealt* out for 1v1 games.

C.

the british isles are almost totally mapped out
looks good
future possibilities could be the Orkneys, or the isle of Man maybe?

RjBeals wrote:There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Hmmm... I've been working on some mountains, but they look baaaaaad

I've tried some background texture but for the most part I think it looks too obviously digital

By blemishes, I'm guessing you mean stains on the paper... that sort of thing... you were right when you said it was hard - nothing I do seems lo look right

Anyway - upwards and onwards

rjbeals
I still think the big image is way too big.
I think the blue and purple regions are too similar in color.

There needs to be some more inspiring gfx. Now it's just a beige map with some speckled glow around the borders. Is this suppose to resemble an old parchment feel? If so, you need some grunge texture to dirty it up a bit. It's too flat now - how about some rivers, hills, mountains or some blemishes on the map, so it doesn't look so digital. I know - it's easier said than done, unless your WM, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Agree with these.
Also you have some small countries who dont have any barriers and must defend all.
You have ony 16 territory,its possible to add more? Or wales have only 13 terrotery

I check in Wikipedia,and wales have 22 unitary authorities,and when you add 3 english,these give you number of 25.